Was it Homophobic?

[lacktheknack]

I'll say this: I denounced a gay pride parade. I did not denounce it because I hate gays. I did not denounce it because of my religion. I did not denounce it because of discomfort with the subject matter.

No, I denounced it because there were several gay guys goose-stepping down the street in assless chaps, which I thought was utterly disgusting and inappropriate.

And yet STILL a bunch of people labeled me as someone who fears things staying the same. Go figure.

 

[Chrinik]

Well, if the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear the word "Homosexual" is a gay pride parade and two dudes lavishly making out, it is TOTALLY NORMAL to be uncomfortable with it...
Hell, I don´t see the point in these parades...all they do is damage the credibility.
Also, humanity has a NATURALLY BUILD IN REFLEX to find everything "abnormal" weird and strange and cast it out. This is so that deformed, sick or genetically unfit would have a harder time finding a mate and therefore couln´t procreate. This is NATURAL...sure, society moved on, and now it´s suddenly "not right" to do that...but tell that to our instincts please.
Humanity does the best it can to fight it´s own urges and insticts, I think that is okay tho, imagine a place where everyone could do as they please (altho you are of course allowed to fight back), that would be a massive clusterfuck.

 

[Biosophilogical]

If he's only uncomfortable with the gay aspect of it... then yeah, that's a bit homophobic.

You sly, yet wise individual, you.

But yes, JulianKing, as per his reputation, is correct. It is homophobic if the 'uncomfortable' feeling is because it is a homosexual representation. If the uncomfortable feeling isn't present for a man-woman poster of the same nature, then it is homophobia. It isn't necessarily a harmful thing to be homophobic like that, I mean, he isn't hurting anyone, and I assume he makes the conscious effort to not be homophobic, given that he is aware of the 'problem'. So while it isn't a good thing, and it can be seen as a bad thing (prejudice/bigotry/whatever you want to call it), it doesn't hurt anyone. So yeah, while I'm not homophobic, and while I'm against homophobia, I don't think less of people who have that level of homophobia, because I understand why they feel that way, even if I don't.

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

I completely agree with OP.
That is all.

 

[LadySeptima]

I'm a lesbian, and I personally feel that poster would have made me uncomfortable--even though I think gay dudes are cute together--for the same reason that anything so in my face would make me uncomfortable. Lashing out at other sexualities is unkind; there's nothing wrong with that message. But I think the poster was wrong because of the manner in which it was presented.
However, if you're comfortable with a poster of straight people kissing in similarly blatant context, then your argument is invalid. And don't give me that, "But being straight is natural" bullshit, because we could spend all day on that. PDA is PDA. Sex is Sex.

 

[zehydra]

While reading this entire thread, I've read OP's posts in the voice of darkwing duck, rendering the reading of his posts somewhat hilarious.

Homophobic is a very loose term that gets thrown around a lot, and I'm sure someone somewhere would think you were being homophobic.

However, I think, as another poster has recognized, that people feel uncomfortable around sexual/provocative/romantic acts between people outside their sexuality, which I believe is normal. However, we (I mean those who feel uncomfortable) need to recognize that we have to work to allow ourselves not to be bothered by it, as others have the same rights for the display of affection as we do.

I'd say not to tear down the poster just for the same reason you wouldn't tear down any old poster. It's very inconsiderate.

 

[xdom125x]

massive snippage. I find your bold text to be one of the most interesting factoids I have ever seen repeated over, and over and over again. Fun fact: a factoid is something that resembles a fact but is utter b.s. It is pretty funny really, because it seems like everyone believes it because every once in a while somebody on the "hating the homosexuality" side is revealed to be gay or bisexual. It is only big news because it is shocking the hypocrisy some people have and how rare the event is.

Shhh, it's always fun to troll bigots.

Well successful troll is successful (twice)
Why are you directing this at me when I fall on the 'bigot' side of this argument. I don't think posters with people kissing or doing sexual things with each other should be all over the place even if it is preaching tolerance of other people's sexuality and especially if it is condemning feeling uncomfortable able something you do not agree with(not the portrayal of people being gay, the portrayal of a person getting to first base being all over a public place.)

 

[clockout]

Is it ironic that this poster defending homosexuality is saying that people are diseased for feeling differently than them?

I was totally just thinking that.

And that's what angers me about the poster.

 

[lacktheknack]

Homophobic is a very loose term that gets thrown around a lot, and I'm sure someone somewhere would think you were being homophobic.

Fun fact: Homophobia technically means "fear of sameness". So when you say "Homophobia is a very loose term", it's even looser than you think it is.

 

[Sporky111]

There are extreme people everywhere. Just because the poster makes you uncomfortable (it would make me uncomfortable, and I'm gay) doesn't mean you're homophobic.

The gay rights group is doing it wrong. They should be making a better name for themselves and encouraging acceptance, rather than attacking those that would speak out against them.

 

[clockout]

While reading this entire thread, I've read OP's posts in the voice of darkwing duck, rendering the reading of his posts somewhat hilarious.

HAHAHAHA That made my night.

 

[Valdrec]

If you got mad at a picture of a black person it would be considered racism, so I think yes, it is, sorry.

It depends on what that black person is doing. If he is just standing there with a cheesy slogan under him, you shouldn't hate him and you might be a racist if you do hate him. However, if he is saying things like "black people are better than you and if you dislike this poster than you are racist", you are allowed to be mad at it(the poster).

Yeahno. It's not saying Homosexuals are better, it's just saying hating them is bad.
It's the equivolent of saying "Rascism is bad" It's true, and there's not reason to get mad about it.
Yes, the picture is intended to be provocative, but the only people it would provoke are homophobic, or censor freaks, and I doubt it is the latter, as most advertising using much more adult themes and suggestive imagery.

 

[DustinLiang]

Homophobia IS a social disease. Feeling uncomfortable about a poster with excessive PDAs is not homophobia though. Homophobia would include actual bigotry or prejudice. So in a way, I both agree and disagree with you. As far as the poster being two guys "making out", I don't know. I'd have to see it. A simple kiss isn't the same as making out.

Yes, the gay movement can be too "in your face" but telling people off for homophobia is not an example of it. Being intolerant of intolerance is not hypocritical anymore than being tolerant of tolerance is redundant.

 

[Merkavar]

i suggest you make your own poster of 2 chicks dressed in volley ball uniforms kissing and hang it next to it.

i mean beach volley ball uniforms

 

[MissDesi]

I'm bi, and that would even make me uncomfortable. Coming from someone in the GBLT community, the people who are overly outspoken about homophobia are the ones even the rest of us find annoying (or at least I would like to punch them a little). It's not homophobic to be uncomfortable with that, it's normal. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

 

[xdom125x]

If you got mad at a picture of a black person it would be considered racism, so I think yes, it is, sorry.

It depends on what that black person is doing. If he is just standing there with a cheesy slogan under him, you shouldn't hate him and you might be a racist if you do hate him. However, if he is saying things like "black people are better than you and if you dislike this poster than you are racist", you are allowed to be mad at it(the poster).

Yeahno. It's not saying Homosexuals are better, it's just saying hating them is bad.
It's the equivolent of saying "Rascism is bad" It's true, and there's not reason to get mad about it.
Yes, the picture is intended to be provocative, but the only people it would provoke are homophobic, or censor freaks, and I doubt it is the latter, as most advertising using much more adult themes and suggestive imagery.

Actually, the poster said something along the lines of 'not approving of people that you are not sexually attracted to do sexually provocative things is a disease' and I think that is completely false. Being diseased implies being worse off. So lacking that 'disease' would make gays and the people that are pushing for the gay agenda(I really need to find a better word than agenda) be better than the people that disagree with them. That statement lumps people that are actually homophobic(hate or fear gay people) with people that think PDA's(Public Displays of Affection) shouldn't be all over advertisements.
Yeah, it would piss off people that like censors and I really think certain things (like people making out) shouldn't be all over advertisements if they can be seen by the public. If it is in a public place, it should not have people making out on it regardless of if they are gay or straight.

edit: I was reminded by a post a few slots above me of this point. There is a difference between a kiss(like a few seconds of lip contact) and making out(like if they keep this up, they will be having sex very soon).

 

[Valdrec]

If you got mad at a picture of a black person it would be considered racism, so I think yes, it is, sorry.

It depends on what that black person is doing. If he is just standing there with a cheesy slogan under him, you shouldn't hate him and you might be a racist if you do hate him. However, if he is saying things like "black people are better than you and if you dislike this poster than you are racist", you are allowed to be mad at it(the poster).

Yeahno. It's not saying Homosexuals are better, it's just saying hating them is bad.
It's the equivolent of saying "Rascism is bad" It's true, and there's not reason to get mad about it.
Yes, the picture is intended to be provocative, but the only people it would provoke are homophobic, or censor freaks, and I doubt it is the latter, as most advertising using much more adult themes and suggestive imagery.

Actually, the poster said something along the lines of 'not approving of people that you are not sexually attracted to do sexually provocative things is a disease' and I think that is completely false. Being diseased implies being worse off. So lacking that 'disease' would make gays and the people that are pushing for the gay agenda(I really need to find a better word than agenda) be better than the people that disagree with them. That statement lumps people that are actually homophobic(hate or fear gay people) with people that think PDA's(Public Displays of Affection) shouldn't be all over advertisements.
Yeah, it would piss off people that like censors and I really think certain things (like people making out) shouldn't be all over advertisements if they can be seen by the public. If it is in a public place, it should not have people making out on it regardless of if they are gay or straight.

edit: I was reminded by a post a few slots above me of this point. There is a difference between a kiss(like a few seconds of lip contact) and making out(like if they keep this up, they will be having sex very soon).

Welllll, I have to say I think there should be more public affection, it's become a bizare line we were toeing and fell onto the wrong side, but I agree that there should be some moderation some of the stuff when kiddies are about, but the poster is partially excused becuase they wouldn't have to do that if people were just tolerant in the first place.
Saying that they're going to be having sex soon is a little silly, that's like banning mirrors from your shop becuase they could break and be used as weapons.

 

[Vicarious Vangaurd]

I hate the word homophobia. It implies someone fears gays (in the context of sexuality and not the literal definition of the prefix) when some people just don't care for them.

 

[xdom125x]

-snip.

-snip-.

Yeahno. It's not saying Homosexuals are better, it's just saying hating them is bad.
It's the equivolent of saying "Rascism is bad" It's true, and there's not reason to get mad about it.
Yes, the picture is intended to be provocative, but the only people it would provoke are homophobic, or censor freaks, and I doubt it is the latter, as most advertising using much more adult themes and suggestive imagery.

Actually, the poster said something along the lines of 'not approving of people that you are not sexually attracted to do sexually provocative things is a disease' and I think that is completely false. Being diseased implies being worse off. So lacking that 'disease' would make gays and the people that are pushing for the gay agenda(I really need to find a better word than agenda) be better than the people that disagree with them. That statement lumps people that are actually homophobic(hate or fear gay people) with people that think PDA's(Public Displays of Affection) shouldn't be all over advertisements.
Yeah, it would piss off people that like censors and I really think certain things (like people making out) shouldn't be all over advertisements if they can be seen by the public. If it is in a public place, it should not have people making out on it regardless of if they are gay or straight.

edit: I was reminded by a post a few slots above me of this point. There is a difference between a kiss(like a few seconds of lip contact) and making out(like if they keep this up, they will be having sex very soon).

Welllll, I have to say I think there should be more public affection, it's become a bizare line we were toeing and fell onto the wrong side, but I agree that there should be some moderation some of the stuff when kiddies are about, but the poster is partially excused becuase they wouldn't have to do that if people were just tolerant in the first place.
Saying that they're going to be having sex soon is a little silly, that's like banning mirrors from your shop becuase they could break and be used as weapons.

Woah, wait once again. You are saying that it is okay for somebody to put a poster up with the intention of offending other people if the topic has been toed around because they knew crossing the line would offend people(into agreeing with them?). If you are trying to convince people to agree with you it is best not to say that disagreeing with you is proof of them having a mental illness when that argument has been used against the very cause you are arguing for.
Also, I was pretty sure that making out is heavier and a lot longer and a lot more intense than a kiss which is why I added the 'next step would be sex'; because there is an order to it: kissing; making out; sex. Also your mirror analogy doesn't really hold up because making out is commonly done before sex while people using shards of a mirror as a knife isn't.

 

[Josdeb]

There are much worse displays of affection in public places everyday.
Ads for food. Ads for clothing. Billboards for deodorant. About 95% of movies. About 95% of TV shows.

The only reason you don't notice is because it is between a man and woman.

So you can feel uncomfortable, that's not discrimination. Just don't complain because it is there, because that is equality.